Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.
546 S.W.3d 23
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Mignone, a corrections officer, complained of sexual harassment by co-worker Kevin Fagan and later alleged inappropriate touching by Sgt. James Nuckols; she sought reassignment away from Fagan but was transferred out of Housing Unit 6 and later moved to other, more hazardous posts.
- Department claimed transfer was for an inmate death threat; internal investigation found the threat dubious and suggested it was a "ploy" to remove Mignone from Unit 6. The Warden delayed returning her and reassignment of Fagan.
- After complaints, Mignone received five Employee Performance Log entries over four months (first such entries in her tenure), which she viewed as disciplinary and damaging to her employment. She also experienced a hostile interview by Investigator Bill Johnson in which she fainted and suffered a concussion.
- Mignone sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) for sexual harassment and for retaliation (for complaints about Fagan and Nuckols). Jury found for DOC on harassment but for Mignone on both retaliation claims, awarding $100,000 compensatory and $1,000,000 punitive damages; trial court also awarded $276,186 in fees and costs.
- DOC appealed, challenging jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, submission and size of punitive damages, and other rulings. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and remanded for determination of reasonable appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction No. 12 (disjunctive list of retaliatory acts) was proper given sufficiency of evidence for each act | Mignone argued each listed act (transfer, five log entries) was supported by evidence and caused damages (including emotional distress) | DOC argued some acts (log entries) produced no legally cognizable damage and thus could not be separately submitted | Court affirmed instruction: DOC failed to preserve the specific sufficiency objection; evidence supported damages (emotional distress, job impact) under MHRA's broader retaliation standard |
| Whether verdict directors erred by omitting requirement that Mignone filed complaints and had "good faith" belief | Mignone relied on instructions requiring a "reasonable" belief that conduct was wrongful | DOC argued instructions should have required explicit findings that complaints were made and that belief was in good faith | Court: omission harmless—complaints were undisputed; "reasonable belief" language sufficed to encompass good-faith component |
| Whether retaliation verdicts should have been framed as hostile-work-environment claims instead of discrete acts | Mignone elected to pursue discrete-act retaliation claims | DOC contended evidence showed an aggregate hostile environment and instructions should have reflected that theory | Court held plaintiff controls theory; discrete retaliation submission was permissible and submissible; no error in failing to instruct on hostile environment |
| Evidentiary rulings: admission of a coworker’s testimony about Fagan and DOC internal investigation report (Exh. ZZZ) | Mignone offered Ellington’s testimony and HR report to show pattern and to support retaliation claims; report summarized interviews and findings | DOC argued Ellington’s testimony was irrelevant/prejudicial; report contained hearsay and risked jury confusion | Court found any error harmless as jury rejected harassment claim; HR report admissible—probative summaries outweighed confusion risk and did not resolve legal issues for the jury |
| Submission and amount of punitive damages | Mignone argued DOC’s deceit (fabricated threat), repeated unjustified log entries, and Johnson’s conduct justified punitive damages on both retaliation claims | DOC argued punitive awards were unsupported and grossly excessive (due process) | Court held punitive damages submissible: facts showed reprehensibility (deceit, repeated acts, danger to health); 10:1 ratio was not excessive under State Farm and Missouri precedent |
| Award of appellate attorney fees | Mignone sought fees as prevailing MHRA plaintiff on appeal | DOC did not oppose entitlement but contested amount | Court affirmed entitlement to appellate fees and remanded to trial court to determine reasonable amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross-Paige v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep't, 492 S.W.3d 164 (Mo. banc 2016) (standard for preserving instructional objections and reviewing jury instructions)
- Hervey v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 379 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. banc 2012) (verdict director must submit all disputed elements; instructional error reversible only if prejudicial)
- Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Prods., Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (Mo. banc 1995) (MHRA retaliation broader than federal law; damages need not show adverse employment action)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (guideposts for assessing punitive-damages due-process limits)
- McGhee v. Schreiber Foods, Inc., 502 S.W.3d 658 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (permissible use of circumstantial evidence for punitive damages and discussion of compensatory–punitive ratios)